Panasonic 100-400mm outresolves Nikon 200-500mm?

[bobn2]

Hi all,

I am very excited for the Panasonic 100-400mm to come out. I had a chance to rent the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 in combination with the D7200. A beautiful combo, but the size/weight was quite significant and a bit too much for me (675g + 2300g = almost 3kg). The GX8 with the 100-400mm would yield a total weight of 487g + 985g = 1472g, which is half of the other combination..!

Now I have seen ephotozine have reviewed both these lenses:

Nikon 200-500mm:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f-5-6e-ed-vr-review-28326

Panasonic 100-400mm:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/...o-elmar-100-400mm-f-4-0-6-3-asph-review-28971

Now the interesting thing is: if you compare the graphs for the results, the Panasonic seems to outweigh the Nikon at maximum aperture at the long end!
According to ephotozine, the Nikons highest LW/PH center score at 500mm and f/5.6 is +-2100 and the Panasonic highest center LW/PH score at 400mm and f/6.3 is +-2300.
Therefore, am I correct saying the Panasonic is sharper at its longest end and max aperture compared to the Nikon? If so, I am quite impressed. However, if you stop down the Nikon to f/11 it will outresolve the Panasonic. But I would probably not use such a lens at f/11.
Anyways, if the Panasonic combo can outresolve the Nikon combo at half of the weight, I am sold.
Looking forward to your thoughts on this!

I think Panny 100-400mm is a clear winner here.

The greatest advantage being that it is sharpest wide open and does not have to be stopped down. Yes, Nikon improves a lot at f11 but at the expense of slow shutter speeds.

Another advocate of a free lunch. Really these two lenses are not comparable in any way at all (unless the Nikon was mounted on a DX camera), and the Panny clearly is a very good lens, as is the Nikon. At it's long end, the Nikon has a maximum entrance pupil of 89mm, that is why it is big. At 250mm, the Panasonic has an entrance pupil of around 45mm (not sure what is its minimum f-number there, since it changes with FL). That's what makes it smaller. But, they are both collecting light from the same angle of view, so the Nikon will collect four times the amount of light. Since the amount of light largely determines your image noise, so long as Nikon and Panasonic (or Olympus) are making cameras which are about as good at using the light they are given (which they are) then whatever your threshold is of 'good enough', you'll be able to set a shutter speed four times slower on the Nikon than you can on the Olympus. Or, you could stop the Nikon down to your f/11 and get the same shutter speed. The Panasonic is sharper wide open because it has to be, and overall the Nikon system will give you faster shutter speeds for any given quality threshold.

 

[Robiro]

Hi all,

I am very excited for the Panasonic 100-400mm to come out. I had a chance to rent the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 in combination with the D7200. A beautiful combo, but the size/weight was quite significant and a bit too much for me (675g + 2300g = almost 3kg). The GX8 with the 100-400mm would yield a total weight of 487g + 985g = 1472g, which is half of the other combination..!

Now I have seen ephotozine have reviewed both these lenses:

Nikon 200-500mm:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f-5-6e-ed-vr-review-28326

Panasonic 100-400mm:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/...o-elmar-100-400mm-f-4-0-6-3-asph-review-28971

Now the interesting thing is: if you compare the graphs for the results, the Panasonic seems to outweigh the Nikon at maximum aperture at the long end!
According to ephotozine, the Nikons highest LW/PH center score at 500mm and f/5.6 is +-2100 and the Panasonic highest center LW/PH score at 400mm and f/6.3 is +-2300.
Therefore, am I correct saying the Panasonic is sharper at its longest end and max aperture compared to the Nikon? If so, I am quite impressed. However, if you stop down the Nikon to f/11 it will outresolve the Panasonic. But I would probably not use such a lens at f/11.
Anyways, if the Panasonic combo can outresolve the Nikon combo at half of the weight, I am sold.
Looking forward to your thoughts on this!

I think Panny 100-400mm is a clear winner here.

The greatest advantage being that it is sharpest wide open and does not have to be stopped down. Yes, Nikon improves a lot at f11 but at the expense of slow shutter speeds.

Another advocate of a free lunch. Really these two lenses are not comparable in any way at all (unless the Nikon was mounted on a DX camera), and the Panny clearly is a very good lens, as is the Nikon. At it's long end, the Nikon has a maximum entrance pupil of 89mm, that is why it is big. At 250mm, the Panasonic has an entrance pupil of around 45mm (not sure what is its minimum f-number there, since it changes with FL). That's what makes it smaller. But, they are both collecting light from the same angle of view, so the Nikon will collect four times the amount of light. Since the amount of light largely determines your image noise, so long as Nikon and Panasonic (or Olympus) are making cameras which are about as good at using the light they are given (which they are) then whatever your threshold is of 'good enough', you'll be able to set a shutter speed four times slower on the Nikon than you can on the Olympus. Or, you could stop the Nikon down to your f/11 and get the same shutter speed. The Panasonic is sharper wide open because it has to be, and overall the Nikon system will give you faster shutter speeds for any given quality threshold.

 

[paul cool]

I would be more inclined to worry if out resolves the Nikon when you can get one from your camera store at the moment it does not even out resolve the 9mm Olympus body cap

 

[Serguei Palto]

I think your conclusion is correct. Majority of the lenses designed for 135 (so-called "FF") format are not capable to resolve 20 Mp FF sensors (20 Mp m43 has the same pixel pitch as 80Mp FF).

"20 Mp FF.." is misstyping. Instead it should be typed "80 Mp FF.."

That sounds like nonsense, unless by "lenses designed for 135" you actually mean all lenses designed since that format's inception. Or you have a pretty loose definition of what "most" means.

One should have in mind that majority of FF lenses have insufficient resolution for pixel density of m43 sensors.

That makes more sense and is much easier to argue for, but are you sure about this?

Me and some my collegues (physisists), we were testing a lot of FF-lenses during our life using not just images from a camera, but with a special optical bench. The best FF-lenses showed about 100 lp/mm (line pairs per millimiter) at an image center and f/5.6 according to the Rayleigh criterion. It is a very good resolution for 16 Mp FF-sensor, but it is not enough for m43 16Mp sensor.

Now, let me show that, for example, Panasonic 20 f/1.7 can provide a resolution higher than 200 lp/mm.This fact can be well demonstrated by the first photo and by its cropped version (photo 2) below.


Photo 1

Thus our object shown in Photo1 has a total width of 100 mm.

Now let us look at a central part of this image.


Photo 2

As you can see, in the central part we have images of different gratings which are marked as "5", "7"..."20".

The mark "5" means 10 line pairs per one cm of the ruller. The mark "20" means 40 printed lines per one centimeter. The gratings "12", "15", "17" and "20" are not resolved by the sensor, but it doesn't mean that they are not resolved by the lens.

The m43 sensor has a width of 17.3 mm.

It means that if the grating "20" is resolved by the lens then the lens is characterized by a resolution of 40 lp/mm*100mm/17.3mm = 230 lp/mm.

As I have said the grating "20" is not resolved by 16Mp sensor in this case (the image of this grating is shown in photo 3 made with a longer lens from the same distance). But, why I can claim that Panasonic 20 f/1.7 lens does resolve the grating "20" ? It is because in photo 2 one can see a pronounced aliasing effect from the gratings "12" up to the grating "20". The existance of the well visible aliasing effect on the "20"-grating prooves that the signal from the lens does contain a spectral component with a spatial frequency of 230 1/mm, or the lens, at least according to the Rayleigh criterion, resolves not less than 230 lp/mm. The last statement, of course, can be proved mathematically, but this forum is not a good place for that, so at this moment you have just to beleave me. The 20 f/1.7 can resolve an m43 sensor with more than 40 Mp (the FF lense should resolve more than 160Mp FF sensor to be in the same resolution league)!


photo 3

The guys at lenstip did measure the resolution that the Canon 5Ds R is capable of delivering. They got 80 lpmm out of it (with existing FF glass, obviously). For reference, E-M5 II is capable of 88 lpmm, and PEN-F a whooping 95 lpmm.

All the tests including ones from guys at lenstip are restricted by sensor resolution and AA-filters plased before sensors. Thus these tests, unfortunately, can not tell us on a real lens resolution.

In my case I have used the fact that if AA-filter is absent then the true lens resolution can be estimated from the aliasing effect.

The 20 f/1.7 is, of course, one of the best lenses. But I have also tested many of the other lenses (14 mm f/2.5, Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8, panasonic 14-42 PZ, panasonic 14-140ii, olympus 14-42 EZ et.al).

All the lenses I tested have sweet settings, when they do outresolve the 16 Mp sensor at least in a central part of an image. And everybody who has HR mode can check this at f/5.6 and lower f-numbers (f/8 is just at difraction edge, so improvement at f/8 will not be well visible in HR mode). My advise - be critical to test results (I mean absolute values in lp/mm or Mpix) provided by such "experts" as DXO, which do not have a relation to the lenses itself !

Unfortunately, at least the budgett FF lenses are indeed very bad in a sense of their true optical resolution. I am not sure that in future it will be possible to make good lenses for say FF 80 Mp sensor (even using an expansive glass) without a significant increase of a lens diameter compared to the existing FF lenses. So it is quite possible that in future good FF lenses will be even more heavy than we have for the moment.

Interestingly, 12mp MFT cameras reach about 80 lpmm, which is the same as with 5Ds R. Which is not surprising considering the pixel density is very similar.

Obviously, this is for the best lenses. The kit zooms for MFT are nowhere near to resolving 80 lpmm. So you could actually argue that: majority of MFT lenses have insufficient resolution for pixel density of m43 sensors.

 

[Astrotripper]

One should have in mind that majority of FF lenses have insufficient resolution for pixel density of m43 sensors.

That makes more sense and is much easier to argue for, but are you sure about this?

Me and some my collegues (physisists), we were testing a lot of FF-lenses during our life using not just images from a camera, but with a special optical bench. The best FF-lenses showed about 100 lp/mm (line pairs per millimiter) at an image center and f/5.6 according to the Rayleigh criterion. It is a very good resolution for 16 Mp FF-sensor, but it is not enough for m43 16Mp sensor.

??? But current best lenses on MFT don't even reach 90 lp/mm on 16mp sensors. A lens that can theoretically resolve 100 lp/mm should clearly be enough for that sensor. It should be enough for 20mp sensor as well, as that does not go over 100 lp/mm either.

The guys at lenstip did measure the resolution that the Canon 5Ds R is capable of delivering. They got 80 lpmm out of it (with existing FF glass, obviously). For reference, E-M5 II is capable of 88 lpmm, and PEN-F a whooping 95 lpmm.

All the tests including ones from guys at lenstip are restricted by sensor resolution and AA-filters plased before sensors. Thus these tests, unfortunately, can not tell us on a real lens resolution.

And that's the point. It's completely pointless to gloat at how great MFT lenses are because they have such resolving power, when the lenses alone don't take photos. So what if some FF lens has theoretically lower resolving power, if it can be paired with 40 or 50 mp sensor and deliver resolution not obtainable with any MFT camera or lens combination?

Sure, it's nice to know all this. What you write confirms the "common knowledge" that MFT lenses resolve more than lenses for larger formats. But they simply need to, to get the same result. And from your results it looks like FF still has room for growth and 64mp sensors will still deliver improvements with high-end modern lenses. So will 4/3.

I just don't see the point of this whole "my lens outresolves yours" argument, when it has so little bearing on real actual photos. This is even more silly than equivalence arguments.

 

[neil holmes]

One should have in mind that majority of FF lenses have insufficient resolution for pixel density of m43 sensors.

That makes more sense and is much easier to argue for, but are you sure about this?

Me and some my collegues (physisists), we were testing a lot of FF-lenses during our life using not just images from a camera, but with a special optical bench. The best FF-lenses showed about 100 lp/mm (line pairs per millimiter) at an image center and f/5.6 according to the Rayleigh criterion. It is a very good resolution for 16 Mp FF-sensor, but it is not enough for m43 16Mp sensor.

??? But current best lenses on MFT don't even reach 90 lp/mm on 16mp sensors. A lens that can theoretically resolve 100 lp/mm should clearly be enough for that sensor. It should be enough for 20mp sensor as well, as that does not go over 100 lp/mm either.

The guys at lenstip did measure the resolution that the Canon 5Ds R is capable of delivering. They got 80 lpmm out of it (with existing FF glass, obviously). For reference, E-M5 II is capable of 88 lpmm, and PEN-F a whooping 95 lpmm.

All the tests including ones from guys at lenstip are restricted by sensor resolution and AA-filters plased before sensors. Thus these tests, unfortunately, can not tell us on a real lens resolution.

And that's the point. It's completely pointless to gloat at how great MFT lenses are because they have such resolving power, when the lenses alone don't take photos. So what if some FF lens has theoretically lower resolving power, if it can be paired with 40 or 50 mp sensor and deliver resolution not obtainable with any MFT camera or lens combination?

Sure, it's nice to know all this. What you write confirms the "common knowledge" that MFT lenses resolve more than lenses for larger formats. But they simply need to, to get the same result. And from your results it looks like FF still has room for growth and 64mp sensors will still deliver improvements with high-end modern lenses. So will 4/3.

I just don't see the point of this whole "my lens outresolves yours" argument, when it has so little bearing on real actual photos. This is even more silly than equivalence arguments.

Using FF and M4/3 (and others).....and often with the same lens, almost all lenses I have used including some very old ones, are ok on 24mp FF cameras.

I have sold my 24mp FF and my current FF is only 12mp (low light use) but I have had very few lenses not up to any recent camera.

Is the new M/3 lenses sharper than the 200-500? Maybe but you DO need a camera with it and for that they answer will be....it depends.

It also doesn't really matter and most test sites have disclaimers that they can not be compared across systems.

Now if you want to use that Nikon lens on M4/3.....THEN it might matter but then you would need to compare them on the same m4/3 camera ........since Nikon adapters for m4/3 are not that great other than dumb ones for older lenses, it would not really be worth it.....unless you use both systems and want to use just the one lens in some way at least (no matter how crippled on M4/3).

Currently it would make more sense to compare Canon lenses since there are a few smart adapters but again, you would need to compare on the same cameras for any really meaningful comparison.

 

[Eugg1]

Thank you all for your insights! Very very helpful and interesting

 

[Serguei Palto]

One should have in mind that majority of FF lenses have insufficient resolution for pixel density of m43 sensors.

That makes more sense and is much easier to argue for, but are you sure about this?

Me and some my collegues (physisists), we were testing a lot of FF-lenses during our life using not just images from a camera, but with a special optical bench. The best FF-lenses showed about 100 lp/mm (line pairs per millimiter) at an image center and f/5.6 according to the Rayleigh criterion. It is a very good resolution for 16 Mp FF-sensor, but it is not enough for m43 16Mp sensor.

??? But current best lenses on MFT don't even reach 90 lp/mm on 16mp sensors. A lens that can theoretically resolve 100 lp/mm should clearly be enough for that sensor.

As It was shown in my message the 20 f/1.7 has more than 230 lp/mm, and it is not a theory. Experienced people can directly check this in HR mode on a latest Olympus camera.

It should be enough for 20mp sensor as well, as that does not go over 100 lp/mm either.

The guys at lenstip did measure the resolution that the Canon 5Ds R is capable of delivering. They got 80 lpmm out of it (with existing FF glass, obviously). For reference, E-M5 II is capable of 88 lpmm, and PEN-F a whooping 95 lpmm.

All the tests including ones from guys at lenstip are restricted by sensor resolution and AA-filters plased before sensors. Thus these tests, unfortunately, can not tell us on a real lens resolution.

And that's the point. It's completely pointless to gloat at how great MFT lenses are because they have such resolving power, when the lenses alone don't take photos.

It is not pointless at all, because the modern Olympus cameras have HR mode, where the resolution above 200 lp/mm is necessary.

The lenses alone don't take photos, but the resolution of sensors in bodies is improved in time, and this is very important.

So what if some FF lens has theoretically lower resolving power, if it can be paired with 40 or 50 mp sensor and deliver resolution not obtainable with any MFT camera or lens combination?

Theoretically FF lenses can have the same resolving power as MFTs, but practically they should be heavier than the exixsting versions. Also your statement "..not obtainable with any MFT camera or lens combination" is not proved on account of the existing m43 HR mode.

The point is that the majority of FF lenses can not work properly with modern 50 or even with 40 mp cameras, but the existing m43 lenses can do work in HR mode providing more than 50mp resolution even at the borders (see borders of the ruller in my photo 1). Also they will be capable to work with future 50mp m43 sensors. For investors into the m43 system it is important to know this, isn't it?

Sure, it's nice to know all this. What you write confirms the "common knowledge" that MFT lenses resolve more than lenses for larger formats. But they simply need to, to get the same result. And from your results it looks like FF still has room for growth and 64mp sensors will still deliver improvements with high-end modern lenses. So will 4/3.

Yes, of course, FF has a room. But I guess that it will be necessary to change the form-factor of the existing FF lenses - they have to become larger to resolve HR sensors.

I just don't see the point of this whole "my lens outresolves yours" argument, when it has so little bearing on real actual photos. This is even more silly than equivalence arguments.

There is nothing close to the strange equivalence "theory" that is simply not valid. It were also no argumets like "my lens outresolves yours" in my messages!

My message was to demonstrate the objective data on m43 lenses (they do can resolve more than 230 lp/mm and it was proved by the simple image and arguments). People should know the true resolution of m43 lenses and should not be foolished by the "testers" and "experts" biased to FF !!!). What I said has a direct relation to how to get the best with m43. The best m43 lenses (I beleave that 100-400 is one of them) can not be replaced by lenses designed so far for FF like Nikkor 200-500, because the latter has insufficient resolving power for objective reasons (the optical aberrations are too high and restrict the resolution).

 

[nzmacro]

So I had a look on flickr at a user group ....

https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor_200-500mm_f56e_ed_vr/pool/page2

The lens is only one part of the equation. One lens might well out resolve another, but then one photographer might out resolve another.

You can take a $16,000 lens and still take rubbish shots, I've seen it happen. You can take a $300 lens and take outstanding shots, I've seen that happen as well. So what does that tell us. Lines per mm doesn't mean diddly squat and how many times do we take shots of a bunch of lines, some might, but a lot don't.

Looking at that flickr group, could m4/3 take those shots, yep sure could, but so could Nikon1, Sony, Canon, Pentax, etc.

So we have a Panasonic zoom that beats the Nikon in a bench test. Want to play with AF and tracking with a Nikon 750 or D4 with that Nikon zoom on it. Probably not a good idea ;-)

All the best and just IMO.

Danny.

--
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/

 

[sinkas]

So I had a look on flickr at a user group ....

https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor_200-500mm_f56e_ed_vr/pool/page2

The lens is only one part of the equation. One lens might well out resolve another, but then one photographer might out resolve another.

You can take a $16,000 lens and still take rubbish shots, I've seen it happen. You can take a $300 lens and take outstanding shots, I've seen that happen as well. So what does that tell us. Lines per mm doesn't mean diddly squat and how many times do we take shots of a bunch of lines, some might, but a lot don't.

Looking at that flickr group, could m4/3 take those shots, yep sure could, but so could Nikon1, Sony, Canon, Pentax, etc.

So we have a Panasonic zoom that beats the Nikon in a bench test. Want to play with AF and tracking with a Nikon 750 or D4 with that Nikon zoom on it. Probably not a good idea ;-)

All the best and just IMO.

Danny.

 

[nzmacro]

So I had a look on flickr at a user group ....

https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor_200-500mm_f56e_ed_vr/pool/page2

The lens is only one part of the equation. One lens might well out resolve another, but then one photographer might out resolve another.

You can take a $16,000 lens and still take rubbish shots, I've seen it happen. You can take a $300 lens and take outstanding shots, I've seen that happen as well. So what does that tell us. Lines per mm doesn't mean diddly squat and how many times do we take shots of a bunch of lines, some might, but a lot don't.

Looking at that flickr group, could m4/3 take those shots, yep sure could, but so could Nikon1, Sony, Canon, Pentax, etc.

So we have a Panasonic zoom that beats the Nikon in a bench test. Want to play with AF and tracking with a Nikon 750 or D4 with that Nikon zoom on it. Probably not a good idea ;-)

All the best and just IMO.

Danny.

--
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/

Danny is correct. And when the speed of the subject goes up and the light goes down ................??

--
Regards Daryl
https://www.flickr.com/photos/123427081@N03/

Excellent point that. Steve uses a 1Dx and a 500 F/4 and he can hit settings I can only dream of !!.

1/4000 - 1/8000, F/11, ISO 1600, up to 16 FPS and its hard to fill the buffer, still smooth as silk images in good daylight and yep, as the sun goes down, I stop shooting.

All the best.

Danny.

--
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/

 

[Eugg1]

Cheers guys .
The main reason I am very excited now is that with my Olympus 75-300mm ii I do not feel confident shooting at 300mm, since I feel it is not that sharp at the longest end (the keeper rate is not consistently high). Therefore I shoot between the 75-150mm range and sometimes go to 200mm as this gives me the sharpest results. Now, finding out that the Panasonic 100-400mm can in fact produce sharp pictures at 400mm fils a big hole for me in the m4/3 world.

 

[gmac68]

Cheers guys .
The main reason I am very excited now is that with my Olympus 75-300mm ii I do not feel confident shooting at 300mm, since I feel it is not that sharp at the longest end (the keeper rate is not consistently high). Therefore I shoot between the 75-150mm range and sometimes go to 200mm as this gives me the sharpest results. Now, finding out that the Panasonic 100-400mm can in fact produce sharp pictures at 400mm fils a big hole for me in the m4/3 world.

Call me crazy but i thought that was the intent of your first post. That 100-400 is undoubtedly a really good lens as demonstrated by the comparison to the Nikon lens, a known good lens. I didn't see how that necessarily translated to a my tool is bigger than yours standoff.

Nice to know we have it coming. Now to justify its acquisition...

 

[Marko2]

Cheers Danny, that was not my point though. My point is that I had a very good experience and sharp photos shooting with that Nikon lens (which gives roughly the same fov) and to see that the Panasonic outresolves it at half of the weight is very impressive for me

No doubt its impressive, but it also depends what you plant behind the lens. I can't see too many Nikon tele users being worried about what m4/3 users are using.

They don't exactly have too much to be worried about in the tele range

http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/lenses?

All the best.

Danny.

 

[Marko2]

Hi all,

I am very excited for the Panasonic 100-400mm to come out. I had a chance to rent the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 in combination with the D7200. A beautiful combo, but the size/weight was quite significant and a bit too much for me (675g + 2300g = almost 3kg). The GX8 with the 100-400mm would yield a total weight of 487g + 985g = 1472g, which is half of the other combination..!

Now I have seen ephotozine have reviewed both these lenses:

Nikon 200-500mm:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f-5-6e-ed-vr-review-28326

Panasonic 100-400mm:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/...o-elmar-100-400mm-f-4-0-6-3-asph-review-28971

Now the interesting thing is: if you compare the graphs for the results, the Panasonic seems to outweigh the Nikon at maximum aperture at the long end!
According to ephotozine, the Nikons highest LW/PH center score at 500mm and f/5.6 is +-2100 and the Panasonic highest center LW/PH score at 400mm and f/6.3 is +-2300.
Therefore, am I correct saying the Panasonic is sharper at its longest end and max aperture compared to the Nikon? If so, I am quite impressed. However, if you stop down the Nikon to f/11 it will outresolve the Panasonic. But I would probably not use such a lens at f/11.
Anyways, if the Panasonic combo can outresolve the Nikon combo at half of the weight, I am sold.
Looking forward to your thoughts on this!

I think Panny 100-400mm is a clear winner here.

The greatest advantage being that it is sharpest wide open and does not have to be stopped down. Yes, Nikon improves a lot at f11 but at the expense of slow shutter speeds.

Another advocate of a free lunch. Really these two lenses are not comparable in any way at all (unless the Nikon was mounted on a DX camera), and the Panny clearly is a very good lens, as is the Nikon. At it's long end, the Nikon has a maximum entrance pupil of 89mm, that is why it is big. At 250mm, the Panasonic has an entrance pupil of around 45mm (not sure what is its minimum f-number there, since it changes with FL). That's what makes it smaller. But, they are both collecting light from the same angle of view, so the Nikon will collect four times the amount of light. Since the amount of light largely determines your image noise, so long as Nikon and Panasonic (or Olympus) are making cameras which are about as good at using the light they are given (which they are) then whatever your threshold is of 'good enough', you'll be able to set a shutter speed four times slower on the Nikon than you can on the Olympus. Or, you could stop the Nikon down to your f/11 and get the same shutter speed. The Panasonic is sharper wide open because it has to be, and overall the Nikon system will give you faster shutter speeds for any given quality threshold.

I'd question that claim when shooting birds, which is one of the main uses of both lenses.

Focal length is seldom too long, and often too short, when shooting birds. And to match 800mm focal length equivalent FF images have to be cropped, reducing its noise and dynamic range advantage because only part of the sensor is being used (the part that equals 1.6x APS-C sensor).

Now add the fact that M43 cameras have significantly higher pixel density than full frame cameras, and that this lens is sharper wide open, and I can easily see Panasonic 100-400mm matching and surpassing 200-500mm on full frame IQ wise.

 

[Marko2]

Cheers guys .
The main reason I am very excited now is that with my Olympus 75-300mm ii I do not feel confident shooting at 300mm, since I feel it is not that sharp at the longest end (the keeper rate is not consistently high). Therefore I shoot between the 75-150mm range and sometimes go to 200mm as this gives me the sharpest results. Now, finding out that the Panasonic 100-400mm can in fact produce sharp pictures at 400mm fils a big hole for me in the m4/3 world.

Call me crazy but i thought that was the intent of your first post. That 100-400 is undoubtedly a really good lens as demonstrated by the comparison to the Nikon lens, a known good lens. I didn't see how that necessarily translated to a my tool is bigger than yours standoff.

Nice to know we have it coming. Now to justify its acquisition...

Exactly. For a second I thought I was in a Nikon forum, where a post like this could reasonably be considered deliberately provocative. But this is an MFT forum. Praising an upcoming and highly anticipated M43 lens by pointing out its objective advantage over a well regarded lens from another system shouldn't have caused any controversies.

 

[bobn2]

Hi all,

I am very excited for the Panasonic 100-400mm to come out. I had a chance to rent the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 in combination with the D7200. A beautiful combo, but the size/weight was quite significant and a bit too much for me (675g + 2300g = almost 3kg). The GX8 with the 100-400mm would yield a total weight of 487g + 985g = 1472g, which is half of the other combination..!

Now I have seen ephotozine have reviewed both these lenses:

Nikon 200-500mm:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f-5-6e-ed-vr-review-28326

Panasonic 100-400mm:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/...o-elmar-100-400mm-f-4-0-6-3-asph-review-28971

Now the interesting thing is: if you compare the graphs for the results, the Panasonic seems to outweigh the Nikon at maximum aperture at the long end!
According to ephotozine, the Nikons highest LW/PH center score at 500mm and f/5.6 is +-2100 and the Panasonic highest center LW/PH score at 400mm and f/6.3 is +-2300.
Therefore, am I correct saying the Panasonic is sharper at its longest end and max aperture compared to the Nikon? If so, I am quite impressed. However, if you stop down the Nikon to f/11 it will outresolve the Panasonic. But I would probably not use such a lens at f/11.
Anyways, if the Panasonic combo can outresolve the Nikon combo at half of the weight, I am sold.
Looking forward to your thoughts on this!

I think Panny 100-400mm is a clear winner here.

The greatest advantage being that it is sharpest wide open and does not have to be stopped down. Yes, Nikon improves a lot at f11 but at the expense of slow shutter speeds.

Another advocate of a free lunch. Really these two lenses are not comparable in any way at all (unless the Nikon was mounted on a DX camera), and the Panny clearly is a very good lens, as is the Nikon. At it's long end, the Nikon has a maximum entrance pupil of 89mm, that is why it is big. At 250mm, the Panasonic has an entrance pupil of around 45mm (not sure what is its minimum f-number there, since it changes with FL). That's what makes it smaller. But, they are both collecting light from the same angle of view, so the Nikon will collect four times the amount of light. Since the amount of light largely determines your image noise, so long as Nikon and Panasonic (or Olympus) are making cameras which are about as good at using the light they are given (which they are) then whatever your threshold is of 'good enough', you'll be able to set a shutter speed four times slower on the Nikon than you can on the Olympus. Or, you could stop the Nikon down to your f/11 and get the same shutter speed. The Panasonic is sharper wide open because it has to be, and overall the Nikon system will give you faster shutter speeds for any given quality threshold.

I'd question that claim when shooting birds, which is one of the main uses of both lenses.

Focal length is seldom too long, and often too short, when shooting birds. And to match 800mm focal length equivalent FF images have to be cropped, reducing its noise and dynamic range advantage because only part of the sensor is being used (the part that equals 1.6x APS-C sensor).

Which is why I said at the top that these two lenses are not comparable. The Nikon cant get down to the same angle of view but has a larger entrance pupil.

Now add the fact that M43 cameras have significantly higher pixel density than full frame cameras, and that this lens is sharper wide open, and I can easily see Panasonic 100-400mm matching and surpassing 200-500mm on full frame IQ wise.

Possibly, the point that I was making was that in the overlapping angles of view, the Nikon has a considerably bigger entrance pupil, gathers more light and that can be used to get less noise for a given shutter speed. Since distant work is quite often shutter speed limited, that is also an important consideration - but in truth the lenses are not very compatible and when it comes to reach, clearly the Panasonic has a considerable advantage. The question is the extent to which you are shutter speed limited, and shooting birds you can quite often be, because they tend to move around.

 

[nzmacro]

Cheers Danny, that was not my point though. My point is that I had a very good experience and sharp photos shooting with that Nikon lens (which gives roughly the same fov) and to see that the Panasonic outresolves it at half of the weight is very impressive for me

No doubt its impressive, but it also depends what you plant behind the lens. I can't see too many Nikon tele users being worried about what m4/3 users are using.

They don't exactly have too much to be worried about in the tele range

http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/lenses?

All the best.

Danny.

--
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/

Danny,

You are completely missing the point.

I don't think I am missing the point. I said that "no doubt its impressive", but is that really what its all about ...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57390936

I don't think that because one lens out resolves another that its too important to the image ;-) Nice to have, but not the end all.

Besides, just because its sharper than a Nikon zoom doesn't mean much if the Nikon body is more capable with the Nikon zoom. Its just nit picking in here to make some feel better That's exactly what it sounds like.

All the best.

Danny.

This is a pretty bizarre exchange. Why are you getting so defensive when you don't even shoot Nikon?

Defensive ?? Why do you have to own Nikon to disagree with a post. I use Sony, Oly and use Canon lenses on them. I don't see why brand would actually matter when someone disagrees with a post.

All the best.

Danny.

--
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/

 

[jeffharris]

And…